Seibert v. United States ex rel. Harshman was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1915. The case involved a dispute between the United States and a private citizen, Seibert, over the ownership of a tract of land in the state of Washington. Seibert had purchased the land from the United States in 1891, but the United States later claimed that the land had been fraudulently obtained by Seibert and sought to reclaim it. Seibert argued that the United States had no right to reclaim the land, as it had been purchased in good faith and the United States had not taken any action to reclaim it until after the statute of limitations had expired. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Seibert, ruling that the United States had no right to reclaim the land. The Court held that the United States had failed to take any action to reclaim the land within the statute of limitations, and thus had no right to do so. The Court also held that Seibert had purchased the land in good faith and had no knowledge of any fraud or misrepresentation. As a result, the Court ruled that Seibert was the rightful owner of the land and the United States had no right to reclaim it.

In the Supreme Court case of Seibert v. United States ex rel. Harshman, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrong and should be overturned. He believed that the court had failed to properly consider whether or not Congress intended for federal courts to have jurisdiction over cases involving state law claims when it passed the Tucker Act in 1887. Furthermore, he argued that there is no evidence suggesting Congress ever intended for such jurisdiction to exist and thus, this case should be dismissed as lacking subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1346(a)(2). Additionally, Justice Scalia noted that if this ruling were allowed to stand then it would open up a floodgate of litigation against states by allowing individuals who are unable to bring their claims in state court due to procedural bars or other reasons an avenue through which they could seek relief from federal courts instead - something he believes was never intended by Congress when passing the Tucker Act all those years ago